"There can be no true friends without true enemies. Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are."
Huntington in 'The Clash of Civilizations'
Samuel Huntington's ideology is an attack on the fundamental teachings
of Christianity, which are the basis for Western Civilization
"The Clash of Civilizations" was published in 1996, around seven years after
the Berlin Wall fell, and the Communist governments of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union were largely replaced by governments
that sought friendship with the West. The author, Samuel Huntington is a spokesman for an influential faction in the foreign
policy establishment. Before publishing this book, he penned an article on the same theme in the New York Council on Foreign
Relation's publication, "Foreign Affairs."
Samuel Huntington was a member of a grouping of students which included Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who were
schooled by William Yandell Elliot at Harvard University. The British educated, Elliot was a defender of the British Empire
and the Southern Confederacy. Elliott trained a number of key operatives who rose to high positions in the government where
they promoted these policies. Huntington collaborated with Bzrezinski, including working with him on a Trilaterial Commission
project, called the 'Crisis of Democracy', which promoted the idea that there was an excess of democracy in the United States.Huntington
is attempting to saddle the post Cold-War world with a new division of the world into cultural blocks; Western Civilization,
Islamic Civilization, Chinese Civilization and others. In Huntington's view, the Cold War has been replaced by 'the Clash
of Civilizations." In fact, Huntington's book is a dirty operation to subvert Western culture, and the foreign policy of the
United States, and bring on conflicts that are destructive to the interests of all cultures including the West.
quote Samuel Huntington's opening chapter:
"The central theme of this book is that culture and cultural identities,
which at the broadest level are civilization identities, are shaping the patters of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict
in the post-Cold War world.
"The balance of power among civilizations is shifting: the West is declining in relative
influence; Asian civilizations are expanding their economic, military, and political strength; Islam is exploding demographically
with destabilizing consequences for Muslim countries and their neighbors, and non-Western civilizations generally are reaffirming
the value of their own cultures."
Huntington rejects Western Christian Civilization
It should be obvious to any half way astute reader that Huntington rejects the very Christian values, that he claims are
central to defining the nature of Western Civilization. Huntington states that: "The term "the West" is now
universally used to refer to what used to be called Western Christendom." However, a discussion of Christendom or Christianity
is almost completely lacking in Huntington's book. Had he discussed the content of Christianity, it would have exposed how
his ideology is completely contrary to the basic teachings of Christ.
Examine this passage from the first chapter:
"One grim Weltanschauung for this new era was well expressed by the Venetian national demagogue in Michael Dibdin's
novel, Dead Lagoon: 'There can be no true friends without true enemies. Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what
we are. These are the old truths we are painfully rediscovering after a century and more of sentimental cant. Those who deny
them deny their family, their heritage, their culture, their birthright, their very selves! They will not lightly be forgiven.'
The unfortunate truth in these old truths cannot be ignored by statesmen and scholars. For peoples seeking identity and reinventing
ethnicity, enemies are essential, and the potentially most dangerous enmities occur across the fault lines between the world's
"Unless we hate what we are not, we cannot love what we are." Is this not the
outlook that Christ denounced when he taught to "love thy neighbor as thyself," love your enemies and turn the other
Huntington and Hobbes
Samuel Huntington's outlook is coherent with the ideology of Thomas Hobbes.
Examine the section from Thomas Hobbes' book "Leviathan," which is on the right side of this page. Hobbes was an English philosopher,
tied to Venetian aristocratic interests, who was a propagandist for reactionary forces in England. Hobbes opposed republicanism
and was a proponent of a reactionary monarchy.
Hobbes argued that men must naturally fight each other for control over
desirable objects. This leads to hatred and a state of war of each one against each one. This permanent state of war among
men can only be controlled, if their rage is contained by a dominant power "to keep them all in awe." This is, of course,
a prescription for a dictatorship to keep the unruly masses under control.
Huntington's arguments are really no more
than a restatement of this Hobbesian outlook. He divides the world into different cultures. His description of Western Civilization,
and of all the other cultures is completely shallow. For example, he mentions that "Confucianism is a major component of Chinese
civilization," but doesn't bother to discuss the nature of Confucian thought. He certainly does not discuss the values
that Confucianism shares with Christianity, which would undermine the basic thesis of his book.
Instead, having presented
his Hobbesian ideology of a "war of every one against every one," Huntington attempts to scare his Western readers with facts
and statistics purporting to show how the West is occupying a shrinking proportion of the world's production and population
pie. Any reader who has accepted Huntington's Hobbesian ideology is led to believe that economic development, and improved
living standards for people of other cultures must necessarily represent a threat to 'us,' that is, the West.
Who is to Blame for America's Decline?
Recently, I met a petroleum engineer from Egypt, who is now working
in Houston, Texas. He told me that when he first came to the United States, he visited the production facility of a major
U.S. producer of oil field equipment. This company is very respected throughout the Middle East. However, he was totally shocked
when he saw their factory, and found it old, dirty and broken down. The majority of the production workers were also old enough
to be near retirement age.
Although hearing this from a foreigner, who came from a country
that is far less developed than the U.S., surprised me, I had heard similar stories numerous times before; for example, from
railroad engineers; from machinists; from a union leader in the chemical industry; and from people who live near a deteriorating
railroad, which is also a major route used by trains carrying chemicals into some of the main chemical plants in the Houston
These impressions are accurate. A recent study by the American
Society of Civil Engineers gave America a D+ for it lack of investment in infrastructure. Trillions of dollars of investment
are required to merely bring the nation back to the level of 1970.
However, the decay of America's industries was certainly not
forced on the this country by the relatively poorer nations in the Middle East and Asia. Rather America succumbed to the ideology
of the 'post-industrial society,' which asserted that the nation had entered the era when the industrial age was to be replaced
by the post-industrial Age. This ideology was fostered a group of establishment think tanks; by the same circles that produced
Samuel Huntington. The 'post-industrial society' ideology was launched as government policy by the Carter administration,
under the direction of Carter's national security advisor Brzezinski, the fellow student with Huntington of William Yandall
During the last 25 years Americans have largely accepted this
ideology. Traditional manufacturing and heavy industry were labeled 'sunset industries,' and America's future, it is claimed,
lay with the 'sunrise industries' such as the 'information technology.'
The 'post-industrial society' ideology has been promoted under
the disguise of environmentalism, with the argument that industry is bad for the environment. It has been promoted, especially
among conservatives, under the guise of deregulation, and free trade. Government investments necessary to maintain the nation's
infrastructure have been halted, with the argument that 'big government is bad.'
Consequently America's factories have been shut down, while the
U.S. has registered the largest trade deficit in world history, and has become the largest debtor in the world. America is
traveling down the same path that took Argentina to bankruptcy.
America's shift to a post industrial economy is dramatically
illustrated by examining the change in the composition of the U.S. labor force over the post World War II period, and by comparing
the composition of employment in the U.S. with other countries.
Did America's Founders Understand Human Nature?
It was during the period that America was making the transition to a
post industrial economy, that Samuel Huntington, published his thesis that 'Western Civilization,' is about to be overwhelmed
by the growing economic power of China, and the growth of the Islamic world. According to Huntington, we must see the successes
of other nations in lifting their people out of poverty as a threat to us.
Should we be happy about the development, of other nations, or should
we see their successes as representing the potential to threaten us in the future? Let's ask the men who built America. A
quick survey of the thinking of key figures who shaped America's remarkable development, shows that all were enthusiastic
supporters of the development and prosperity of other nations.
Cotton Mather, one of the leading thinkers in Colonial America, profoundly
influenced Benjamin Franklin with his book, 'Bonifacius, An Essay upon the Good.' Mather completely rejected the 'law of the
jungle' ideology of Thomas Hobbes, and instead taught that man must seek to do the good in every way possible, to be truly
human. Mather recommended that one should make the entire world, and all it's people, the field upon which one must do the
America's Founders consulted the writings of Emmerich de Vattel, in
drafting the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution. Vattel counseled 'that each individual nation is bound to
contribute every thing in her power to the happiness and perfection of all the others.' He proposed that the best strategy
for an advanced nation to follow to help backward nations shake off barbarism, is to assist these nations in developing.
Alexander Hamilton, John Q. Adams, and the men who founded the Republican
Party were all strong proponents of the economic development of other nations. Lincoln's most important economic advisor,
Henry Carey was involved in designing development projects all over the world.
A defining moment in the 20th century was the confrontation between
Franklin Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Churchill over Roosevelt's insistence that British 19th century methods be replaced
with American System methods for economic development of Africa and Asia. Unfortunately, Roosevelt died before he could realize
his plans, and colonialism lived on.
Finally, Lyndon LaRouche, the only man who has advanced a solution to
the current crisis in the United States, has demonstrated that the survival of the US requires a reorganization of the bankrupt
world financial system. A 'New Bretton Woods' reform of the world financial system and development projects to rebuild the
entire world are the only possible path that the U.S. can follow for recovery.
The American System, that was designed and promoted by the men referenced above, was based on each nation exerting
sovereign power over it's economy to insure the nation's development; and also cooperation among nations, to promote the development
of each other. Were the founding Fathers correct in rejecting the Hobbesian view of human nature? Perhaps it is time you figured
this out. However, to do that, you may need to examine the assumptions that govern your thinking. You will also need to do
some serious intellectual work. Americans used to believe in that.